The OEM's that do real consistent extended drains like the Germans use some pretty large cartridge filters to accomplish this. Regardless of what companies like M1, Bosch, Fram, etc advertise I'm wondering if it's actually a good idea to go that long on these relatively small filters.
Extended drains with spin-on oil filters
- Thread starter vinu_neuro
- Start date
- Status
The Japanese filters are generally lower in initial efficiency, while higher in capacity, than the 'standard' media in most spin-on filters, making them suitable for the drain intervals specified by the manufacturer.
The longer-drain filters from M1, Bosch, Fram, Purolator, etc, likely use a different (and "deeper") media in those filters specified for certain applications. You'll notice this from Purolator; some of their smaller filters (intended for Japanese applications) are rated at 40 microns instead of at 20 microns like the rest of the line.
They have a lower initial efficiency. However, as particles build on the media, the efficiency increases (making it less effective as a filter if changed too soon). The trade-off for the lower initial efficiency is the increase in capacity compared with a very tight and efficient media.
Some of the more expensive filters use a higher-priced media that has a good initial efficiency while also maintaining good capacity for longer change intervals.
The longer-drain filters from M1, Bosch, Fram, Purolator, etc, likely use a different (and "deeper") media in those filters specified for certain applications. You'll notice this from Purolator; some of their smaller filters (intended for Japanese applications) are rated at 40 microns instead of at 20 microns like the rest of the line.
They have a lower initial efficiency. However, as particles build on the media, the efficiency increases (making it less effective as a filter if changed too soon). The trade-off for the lower initial efficiency is the increase in capacity compared with a very tight and efficient media.
Some of the more expensive filters use a higher-priced media that has a good initial efficiency while also maintaining good capacity for longer change intervals.
Longer drain intervals mean that you should be a bit more involved in what's going on and how things work. For some people this is a recipe for problems.
If your car has a small filter and you can't put a larger filter on it, you can replace the filter halfway through a longer drain OCI.
The Noria Article I just posted in a separate thread notes that small filters are not as good as larger filters.
The Noria Article I just posted in a separate thread notes that small filters are not as good as larger filters.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
The Japanese filters are generally lower in initial efficiency, while higher in capacity, than the 'standard' media in most spin-on filters, making them suitable for the drain intervals specified by the manufacturer.
The longer-drain filters from M1, Bosch, Fram, Purolator, etc, likely use a different (and "deeper") media in those filters specified for certain applications. You'll notice this from Purolator; some of their smaller filters (intended for Japanese applications) are rated at 40 microns instead of at 20 microns like the rest of the line.
They have a lower initial efficiency. However, as particles build on the media, the efficiency increases (making it less effective as a filter if changed too soon). The trade-off for the lower initial efficiency is the increase in capacity compared with a very tight and efficient media.
Hokie, I would ask you to back that up. That not what I see at all. I suppose you could say that a lower efficiency filter has more capacity because it's letting so much contamination pass thru, but capacity is directly proportional to the amount of media in the filter, nothing more. Do those low efficiency Japanese OE filters have significantly more media than the aftermarket competition? Not from what I've seen but if you can show me they do, I'd be grateful for the correction.
Also, initial vs final efficiency in oil filters is not that significant. It can be 3-5% in an air filter (much larger pore sizes in an air filter). When I asked that question at Parker, Fram and other places, I was told no more than 1-2% in oil filters.
The Japanese filters are generally lower in initial efficiency, while higher in capacity, than the 'standard' media in most spin-on filters, making them suitable for the drain intervals specified by the manufacturer.
The longer-drain filters from M1, Bosch, Fram, Purolator, etc, likely use a different (and "deeper") media in those filters specified for certain applications. You'll notice this from Purolator; some of their smaller filters (intended for Japanese applications) are rated at 40 microns instead of at 20 microns like the rest of the line.
They have a lower initial efficiency. However, as particles build on the media, the efficiency increases (making it less effective as a filter if changed too soon). The trade-off for the lower initial efficiency is the increase in capacity compared with a very tight and efficient media.
Hokie, I would ask you to back that up. That not what I see at all. I suppose you could say that a lower efficiency filter has more capacity because it's letting so much contamination pass thru, but capacity is directly proportional to the amount of media in the filter, nothing more. Do those low efficiency Japanese OE filters have significantly more media than the aftermarket competition? Not from what I've seen but if you can show me they do, I'd be grateful for the correction.
Also, initial vs final efficiency in oil filters is not that significant. It can be 3-5% in an air filter (much larger pore sizes in an air filter). When I asked that question at Parker, Fram and other places, I was told no more than 1-2% in oil filters.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Also, initial vs final efficiency in oil filters is not that significant. It can be 3-5% in an air filter (much larger pore sizes in an air filter). When I asked that question at Parker, Fram and other places, I was told no more than 1-2% in oil filters.
So these low efficiency OEM filters from Honda and Toyota are only gaining 2% max during long OCI's if they load up a bit? If true I guess that settles the long OCI question about these filters, they are built for FLOW. We are back to weak OEM oil pumps I believe.
Also, initial vs final efficiency in oil filters is not that significant. It can be 3-5% in an air filter (much larger pore sizes in an air filter). When I asked that question at Parker, Fram and other places, I was told no more than 1-2% in oil filters.
So these low efficiency OEM filters from Honda and Toyota are only gaining 2% max during long OCI's if they load up a bit? If true I guess that settles the long OCI question about these filters, they are built for FLOW. We are back to weak OEM oil pumps I believe.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Hokie, I would ask you to back that up.
Jim, I will send you a PM.
Hokie, I would ask you to back that up.
Jim, I will send you a PM.
You can change the filter without changing the oil, I actually did this a lot when I got a good deal on a case of mopar paper filters. There was no way I was changing all that good Redline oil but the filters were stiff after 3k miles or less. The oil level would almost be a quart short, probably because it is a large engine and there was substantial amount behind the filter in the line.
I'm not sure it stands to reason that a filter will or can only gain a few percentage points of efficiency. Consider this...
Efficiency is a measurement of how many particles are stopped by the filter, and is expressed as a percentage at a given size. Say, 90% at 20 microns. We all know this. We also know that there will come a point in time (after so many miles) that the media will become so clogged that it doesn't let anything through and the filter bypasses. At this point, the filter is 0% efficient (it traps nothing), but the media itself is 100% efficient...the media itself will let *nothing* pass.
As the filter loads, its efficiency increases. Its efficiency increases towards 100%, until such a time that it will bypass and then the efficiency quickly drops to 0%.
I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that any given filter's efficiency can only increase by 2-3%. If that's the case, then a filter with a 90% efficiency would never clog. And I don't believe that's true.
Efficiency is a measurement of how many particles are stopped by the filter, and is expressed as a percentage at a given size. Say, 90% at 20 microns. We all know this. We also know that there will come a point in time (after so many miles) that the media will become so clogged that it doesn't let anything through and the filter bypasses. At this point, the filter is 0% efficient (it traps nothing), but the media itself is 100% efficient...the media itself will let *nothing* pass.
As the filter loads, its efficiency increases. Its efficiency increases towards 100%, until such a time that it will bypass and then the efficiency quickly drops to 0%.
I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that any given filter's efficiency can only increase by 2-3%. If that's the case, then a filter with a 90% efficiency would never clog. And I don't believe that's true.
I would recommend that those who propose to change the filter half way through an OCI do a simple test. Run one OCI and do not change the filter and do a UOA and than do a second same interval test and change the filter half way through. Based upon my personal testing in this manner I found that changing a filter halfway through an OCI was a waste of time and money, the UOA was the same! My OCi was 12,000 miles.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Longer drain intervals mean that you should be a bit more involved in what's going on and how things work. For some people this is a recipe for problems.
Amen, brother.
I've been asked by more than one friend about doing an extended OCI, when my (unspoken) advice was that they should not own a car at all.
Longer drain intervals mean that you should be a bit more involved in what's going on and how things work. For some people this is a recipe for problems.
Amen, brother.
I've been asked by more than one friend about doing an extended OCI, when my (unspoken) advice was that they should not own a car at all.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I'm not sure it stands to reason that a filter will or can only gain a few percentage points of efficiency. Consider this...
Efficiency is a measurement of how many particles are stopped by the filter, and is expressed as a percentage at a given size. Say, 90% at 20 microns. We all know this. We also know that there will come a point in time (after so many miles) that the media will become so clogged that it doesn't let anything through and the filter bypasses. At this point, the filter is 0% efficient (it traps nothing), but the media itself is 100% efficient...the media itself will let *nothing* pass.
As the filter loads, its efficiency increases. Its efficiency increases towards 100%, until such a time that it will bypass and then the efficiency quickly drops to 0%.
I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that any given filter's efficiency can only increase by 2-3%. If that's the case, then a filter with a 90% efficiency would never clog. And I don't believe that's true.
In the abstract, yes, greater increases than 2% are possible. And when looked at on a micro level, some filters probably increase more than others... I was just relaying the generic figures given to me. In the practical world, bypass will happen long before the oil fitler reaches 100 percent efficiency and therein lies the practical limit. The 2% I mentioned is only until the filter reaches the DP where bypass may begin to happen regularly, which is the point where, in a practical sense, the oil filter's life is over.
Also, oil filter media has smaller and more evenly distributed pores (generally speaking) than air filters and are designed for much less flow. Think of how many CFM of dirty air must flow thru an air filter in its life. The oil filter recirculates many liters of oil in it's life but in terms of volume, the air filter flows a staggeringly larger amount. The point to this is that with large and more uneven pores, the air filter's efficiency is bound to increase more than the oil filter. But again, it also has a restriction limit, though no bypass to save it from imploding.
As I said, the design specifics for each individual brand, type or efficiency of filter may change the final efficiency differently in one filter vs some others, but I got the generic, ~2 percent (until max DP is reached) from more than one filter person and think that's a good overall rule-of-thumb. I would love to see specifics on some filters for comparison... especially the filters I want to use.
I'm not sure it stands to reason that a filter will or can only gain a few percentage points of efficiency. Consider this...
Efficiency is a measurement of how many particles are stopped by the filter, and is expressed as a percentage at a given size. Say, 90% at 20 microns. We all know this. We also know that there will come a point in time (after so many miles) that the media will become so clogged that it doesn't let anything through and the filter bypasses. At this point, the filter is 0% efficient (it traps nothing), but the media itself is 100% efficient...the media itself will let *nothing* pass.
As the filter loads, its efficiency increases. Its efficiency increases towards 100%, until such a time that it will bypass and then the efficiency quickly drops to 0%.
I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that any given filter's efficiency can only increase by 2-3%. If that's the case, then a filter with a 90% efficiency would never clog. And I don't believe that's true.
In the abstract, yes, greater increases than 2% are possible. And when looked at on a micro level, some filters probably increase more than others... I was just relaying the generic figures given to me. In the practical world, bypass will happen long before the oil fitler reaches 100 percent efficiency and therein lies the practical limit. The 2% I mentioned is only until the filter reaches the DP where bypass may begin to happen regularly, which is the point where, in a practical sense, the oil filter's life is over.
Also, oil filter media has smaller and more evenly distributed pores (generally speaking) than air filters and are designed for much less flow. Think of how many CFM of dirty air must flow thru an air filter in its life. The oil filter recirculates many liters of oil in it's life but in terms of volume, the air filter flows a staggeringly larger amount. The point to this is that with large and more uneven pores, the air filter's efficiency is bound to increase more than the oil filter. But again, it also has a restriction limit, though no bypass to save it from imploding.
As I said, the design specifics for each individual brand, type or efficiency of filter may change the final efficiency differently in one filter vs some others, but I got the generic, ~2 percent (until max DP is reached) from more than one filter person and think that's a good overall rule-of-thumb. I would love to see specifics on some filters for comparison... especially the filters I want to use.
It's hard to know whether filtration efficiency is important for wear since the extended drain ones increase both efficiency as well as surface area simultaneously. Considering lack of focus on high efficiency from OEM's it's probably not that important for engine wear. What would be interesting to know is the efficiency of European OEM's that do extended drains. Like I said before they use some pretty large filters to get this done.
Originally Posted By: vinu_neuro
Considering lack of focus on high efficiency from OEM's it's probably not that important for engine wear.
I think this is the take-away. Not that low-efficiency filters are better than high-efficiency filters, but that filter efficiency may not make a lick of difference in engine durability. A lot of focus (by folks like us) is put on efficiency. None of the OEMs (that I know of) are calling for 99.9% efficient filters. Filters on the shelf at the parts store need to market themselves to sell. An efficiency rating is a great way to do it.
Meanwhile, you have engines running hundreds of thousands of miles on filters that might be half as efficient.
Domestic OEMs tend towards higher efficiences. And they have engines that go hundreds of thousands of miles. Japanese OEMs tend towards lower efficiencies. And they have engines that go hundreds of thousands of miles. It would be interesting to compare European OEMs, but in the end, they have engines that go hundreds of thousands of miles as well.
I'm in agreement with you that while this is an interesting discussion, filter efficiency is probably not terribly critical to engine life.
Considering lack of focus on high efficiency from OEM's it's probably not that important for engine wear.
I think this is the take-away. Not that low-efficiency filters are better than high-efficiency filters, but that filter efficiency may not make a lick of difference in engine durability. A lot of focus (by folks like us) is put on efficiency. None of the OEMs (that I know of) are calling for 99.9% efficient filters. Filters on the shelf at the parts store need to market themselves to sell. An efficiency rating is a great way to do it.
Meanwhile, you have engines running hundreds of thousands of miles on filters that might be half as efficient.
Domestic OEMs tend towards higher efficiences. And they have engines that go hundreds of thousands of miles. Japanese OEMs tend towards lower efficiencies. And they have engines that go hundreds of thousands of miles. It would be interesting to compare European OEMs, but in the end, they have engines that go hundreds of thousands of miles as well.
I'm in agreement with you that while this is an interesting discussion, filter efficiency is probably not terribly critical to engine life.
- Status
